“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[Elizabeth502]

The next ballot question will be whether everyone shall have at least one recorded homosexual experience each year, to prove that the person is not homophobic.

I actually don’t know why I’m laughing; it’s probably not far from reality.

 

[irishpatrick]

Forget religion.

Forget health.

**How about: we are supposed to live in the land of liberty? **

People can go through all sorts of painful operations to improve their appearance (some of which can be life threatening), and yet no-one tries to ban that stuff.

 

[Cider]

“Functioning”? Just what is the “function” of foreskin, Cider?

.

I’m only going to list the protective qualities here, if you do a google search you will find ample info on the foreskins other functions. Also remember that the foreskin is fused to the glans in infants and small children until it becomes retractive so it protects the glans and urethra from contact with bodily waste prior to potty training.

Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands – glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health the surface of the glans.

Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body’s first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother’s milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin’s outer surface.Plasma cells in the foreskin’s mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sorry. Wrong. The extreme left definitely seeks to attack religious liberty. I’ve seen it in often and in many places, as have many others. The PC crowd is not horrified; many of them are supportive of this ballot initiative. And Catholics number among them as well. (The fact that you are surprised and “speechless” shows that you have not been aware that Catholics, especially on the left, number among the PC set as well. Not a criticism of you, just a correction.

Fair enough. That’s just not my experience of the far left.

Take the ACLU, for instance. Sometimes their interpretation of civil rights leads them to good conclusions; for instance I read a few months ago about a student who got in trouble for putting religious and Bible quotes on his locker. Decorating in general was allowed, but the school made him take them down because they were Christian, and the ACLU actually defended him rigorously and made the school let him post the quotes.

Now, I know the ACLU often takes the other side - when it comes to religious displays on courthouse lawns and such - but when it comes to specific individuals publicly expressing and practicing their religion, they tend to side for religious liberty.

And this particular case is obviously in the category of individual actions; no public institution circumcises infant boys.

I’m only going to list the protective qualities here, if you do a google search you will find ample info on the foreskins other functions.

So let me reiterate my question: do you think this ban is a good idea? Do you think it should happen?

Also, how do you feel about the fact that God formally instituted circumcision as a defining characteristic for His chosen people?

 

[Tsuwano]

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

No, but like baptism it is a communal sign of entrance into a religious faith and tradition. In this way it is similar to the sacrament of baptism for Christians.

 

[JHow]

…Also, how do you feel about the fact that God formally instituted circumcision as a defining characteristic for His chosen people?

I don’t see how one gets around this. It’s theological and historical fact. Also, I’m no theologian, but as I read Paul, I see him reacting more to Christians claiming that circumcision is necessary for salvation, rather than the act of circumcision itself.

Also, the health merits are debatable. For many years in the US the practice was touted for hygenic reasons (circumcision is in some ways the mark of being born in a hospital - as opposed to on the farm). In modern times less so - but that may simply reflect better overall hygiene in the population reducing the benefits of circumcision. From a health perspective I think parents and pediatricians are best-positioned to make the right choice for the children in their care (as opposed to the city council).

From a religious perspective, the whole thing smacks of anti-semitism to me.

 

[bigquests]

I get that you guys like to use PC to shut down discussion here, but it is not applicable. This has nothing to do with political correctness.

Yes it does. And with the lunatic ways they do things in California. Anyone with enough signatures can get something on a ballot.

Circumcision helps prevent STD’s, including herpes, HPV and HIV, and cancer of the penis.

If this passes, other things can get banned, too, like holy water fonts–after all they contain bacteria-filled water!

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[JHow]

… And with the lunatic ways they do things in California. Anyone with enough signatures can get something on a ballot…

Ballot measures go both ways. Sometimes, like Prop. 8 or Prop. 13, the political establishment simply would never have done the right thing by the public without a ballot measure. Other times, ballot measures are just a handy way for the legislature to duck responsibility, especially when it comes to spending or bond measures.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Yes it does. And with the lunatic ways they do things in California. Anyone with enough signatures can get something on a ballot.

Circumcision helps prevent STD’s, including herpes, HPV and HIV, and cancer of the penis.

If this passes, other things can get banned, too, like holy water fonts–after all they contain bacteria-filled water!

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It seems the anti-circumcision movement is gaining some steam even among religions that practice it. The “Brit Shalom” is intended to remove the requirement of circumcision for Jewish boys. Personally, to me the arguments against circumcision are largely “special pleading” in nature, hyperbole or merely theoretical.

 

[JaMc]

Banning male infant circumcision would be the equivalent of banning infant baptism. It is most surprising that a liberally-minded city such as San Francisco would even entertain such a proposal, and if it passes that would be a clear violation of religious freedom.

You’re actually surprised that a “liberally-minded” city attacking a religious practice?

Anyway, when comes to religious circumcision, I’d give this law about 5 minutes before a court rules it’s in violation of the 1st Amendment. If they want it to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, they’ll have to put in a religious exemption if they want it hold up.

 

[bigquests]

Ballot measures go both ways. Sometimes, like Prop. 8 or Prop. 13, the political establishment simply would never have done the right thing by the public without a ballot measure. Other times, ballot measures are just a handy way for the legislature to duck responsibility, especially when it comes to spending or bond measures.

Prop 13 signaled the beginning of the end of the state of California. No reasonable way to raise money outside of sales taxes. The quality of all social services, especially the formerly excellent school system, dates from Prop. 13.

The passage of prop 8 reflects the power of out-of-state Mormon money. It may still be declared illegal by the courts. If not, it will fade in time, as the anti-miscegeny laws in the south persisted only to make an embarrassment for the states that had them.

There is a remarkable swing in people’s attitudes towards gay marriage, which becomes much more positive with each generation. Fully half of Catholics born after about 1985, ie the younger generation, support gay marriage.

 

[Blacksword]

Forget religion.

Forget health.

**How about: we are supposed to live in the land of liberty? **

People can go through all sorts of painful operations to improve their appearance (some of which can be life threatening), and yet no-one tries to ban that stuff.

Because those surgeries are VOLUNTARY, they are elective surgeries entered into by the express consent of the patient! No one has the right to amputate normal, healthy, non-renewable body parts from another human being without their consent.

 

[Blacksword]

Dan Bollinger of the anything but Catholics agaist Circuncision is one of the strongest proponents of a ban on circumcision and, like the rest of his clan, will say anything hee thinks he can get away with to support his position. Catholicsagainstcircumcision is another ‘front’ for the anti-circ movement and has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Indeed it is only a ‘shell’ organisation set up deliberately to attempt to fool folk into thinking that there are many Catholics against circumcision. The Catholic Church does not oppose circumcision when performed for medical or social reasons, or by members of other Faiths. The Church only says (as per St Paul in the Bible) that for a Christian, circumcision has no religious significance and must not be relied upon as a route to Heaven. Bollinger et al know this but deliberately repeat their claim that the Church opposes circumcision. This proposal is yet another attempt to outlaw religion and to prevent parents from parenting as they see best for their children.

Here’s another bit of their apologia for you Meltzerboy," This will not have a huge impact on most people."I guess Jews and Muslims are not most people.It would be akin as you say to the forbidding of Baptism.To hell with Caesar.Poor St Francis.

There are NO established medical benefits to foreskin amputation surgery, euphemistically entitled “circumcision” today. The actual ancient Abrahamic covenant was a tiny ceremonial cut and bears about as much resemblance to modern medical circumcision as tearing out one’s fingernail would to clipping the tip of the nail.

“Social reasons” are totally hollow and frankly twisted once the medical justifications fall apart. At that point social reasons means basically, “because I just want to cut my infant baby’s genitals” or " Because I like the way a scarrified penis looks"…and if social reasons are the only ones we have left for doing it, then you have NO non-arbitrary reason on earth why an African parent shouldn’t be permitted to do at least the equivalent anatomical harm to their daughter, excision of the clitoral hood.

Are our children’s bodies their own, or are they actually our accessories, with which we have license to play human vivisection as we wish?

 

[Blacksword]

Also, how do you feel about the fact that God formally instituted circumcision as a defining characteristic for His chosen people?

Here’s the problem: what we do in hospitals today to infant boys, and happens to baby Jewish boys today, is in no way anatomically similar to the covenant instituted by God. Every Jew right up to Jesus, Paul, and all others into the Second Century A.D. had a very small ceremonial cut on the very tip of the prepuce, that’s it. It wasn’t until the second century that some Jewish preists decided that it was too easy for Jews to “pass” in the Roman and Greek culture, and so came up with requirements to remove a much larger portion of the penis’ anatomy. The ancient Jews didn’t have Gomco clamps or Plastibells, and nearly every baby then, without such devices to staunch blood flow, would have died from the procedure. This is historic fact.

And people talking about the Church’s stance should read Paul VI whom said it was ONLY acceptable in the case of medical necessity to treat an illness that could not be treated ANY OTHER WAY. Also, St. Paul’s perspective got more and more anti-circ, calling the people of his day (whom advocated the far lesser cut than today mind you) Dogs, and mutilators of the flesh…anyone remember his warning “Beware the mutilation of the flesh”!

There is something more than a little insulting to God’s creation to say that we think he essentially made a mistake, and we know better how the male form ought to look.

 

[Blacksword]

Yes it does. And with the lunatic ways they do things in California. Anyone with enough signatures can get something on a ballot.

Circumcision helps prevent STD’s, including herpes, HPV and HIV, and cancer of the penis.

If this passes, other things can get banned, too, like holy water fonts–after all they contain bacteria-filled water!

Be careful what you wish for.

Baloney. There isn’t one single conclusive medical benefit. Non-peer reviewed studies have long cited all kinds of ridiculous medical benefits, but then later been debunked by actual peer reviewed, published scientific research. Not a single medical association in the world recommends the procedure, not even the U.S. AMA or AAP. The rates of penal cancer in Europe are identical to the U.S., and yet no one there is cut among the white population (excluding Muslims). The rate of HIV and STD’s is LOWER there than here. Increasingly American doctors are admitting these facts too…sorry but this is the truth.

 

[Blacksword]

It seems the anti-circumcision movement is gaining some steam even among religions that practice it. The “Brit Shalom” is intended to remove the requirement of circumcision for Jewish boys. Personally, to me the arguments against circumcision are largely “special pleading” in nature, hyperbole or merely theoretical.

Really? That’s funny actually, since it’s actually the arguments FOR cutting of gentials that are special pleading. To wit: Please state a single other scenario in American medicine wherein a physician willingly subjects a non-consenting patient to a medically unnecessary surgery at the whim of any third-party? How about where said surgery involves the amputation of functional, normal, healthy, and non-renewable body parts?

Any other case like this than genital cutting of male babies? In what other situation does a physician say “Well, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with you now, but something COULD go wrong when you’re, say, 70 years old, and you don’t really NEED body part X, so I’m gonna go ahead and cut it off anyway”?

I’ll wait to hear the list of other situations falling under these criteria…

 

[Blacksword]

You’re actually surprised that a “liberally-minded” city attacking a religious practice?

Anyway, when comes to religious circumcision, I’d give this law about 5 minutes before a court rules it’s in violation of the 1st Amendment. If they want it to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, they’ll have to put in a religious exemption if they want it hold up.

I’m sorry, but I have to point out on this issue that, it’s a fact of a free society that religious liberty has it’s limits. Number one, if circumcision was only being practiced by Jews in America, and was being done the actual God-ordained, Biblical way, none of us would be having this discussion now.

But since that’s not the case, it is worth remembering that the State has the authority and responsibility to administer and discern between the relative rights of people subject to it’s jurisdiction, and it has the duty to secure the liberties of those people, especially in the protection of the most vulnerable and defenseless among it’s subjects.

If I am a Santeria practitioner, no matter how fervently my religious beliefs require it, I am not permitted to sacrifice a goat in the park. A Druid cannot participate in human sacrifice. While I happen to think education is a better route to pursue on this issue than government bans, I must say that it seems to me a reasonable proposition to state that one person’s religious liberties end where another person’s inherent rights to bodily integrity, dignity, and respect for their physical personhood begins, at least on it’s face.

It is an issue of freedom and liberty all right: and the person whose rights are most at issue is the owner of the penis in question.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m sorry, but I have to point out on this issue that, it’s a fact of a free society that religious liberty has it’s limits. Number one, if circumcision was only being practiced by Jews in America, and was being done the actual God-ordained, Biblical way, none of us would be having this discussion now.

But since that’s not the case, it is worth remembering that the State has the authority and responsibility to administer and discern between the relative rights of people subject to it’s jurisdiction, and it has the duty to secure the liberties of those people, especially in the protection of the most vulnerable and defenseless among it’s subjects.

If I am a Santeria practitioner, no matter how fervently my religious beliefs require it, I am not permitted to sacrifice a goat in the park. A Druid cannot participate in human sacrifice. While I happen to think education is a better route to pursue on this issue than government bans, I must say that it seems to me a reasonable proposition to state that one person’s religious liberties end where another person’s inherent rights to bodily integrity, dignity, and respect for their physical personhood begins, at least on it’s face.

It is an issue of freedom and liberty all right: and the person whose rights are most at issue is the owner of the penis in question.

I’m sorry but how Jews perform circumcision is their business.

I’ve asked an Orthodox Jew if this idea was true, that ancient circumcision was some how different. I was told that it was the same procedure now than it was in the past. There have been Egyptian mummies who were circumcised exactly the same way…the theory was that they intermingled with Jews and copied their customs.

The State has no business telling Jews how they should practice their faith…it is up to Jewish religious leaders to decide what method to use…and they seem to have made a decision…a long time ago

To compare Santeria to Judaism is a bit offensive, don’t you think?

 

[Blacksword]

I’m sorry but how Jews perform circumcision is their business.

I’ve asked an Orthodox Jew if this idea was true, that ancient circumcision was some how different. I was told that it was the same procedure now than it was in the past. There have been Egyptian mummies who were circumcised exactly the same way…the theory was that they intermingled with Jews and copied their customs.

The State has no business telling Jews how they should practice their faith…it is up to Jewish religious leaders to decide what method to use…and they seem to have made a decision…a long time ago

To compare Santeria to Judaism is a bit offensive, don’t you think?

I’m sorry, but your Jewish friend is wrong, and you can find this information on jewish websites, it’s also published and well-supported in the scholarly research on the subject. There absolutely was a major change in the second century to the practice. Though you are right in saying that genital cutting goes far back in human history. That doesn’t make all genital cutting the same.

And comparing Santeria to Judaism, or any other religion, when we are talking about the relative religious liberties and freedoms secured in a secular, free and open society not establishing any state religion, seems appropriate and non-offensive to me:shrug:

Just because I personally think that much more truth is found in Judaism than Santeria does not make any difference to the State’s perspective on the issue in weighing the limits of religious freedom. The State is specifically charged with NOT making such value judgments between religions.